Teacher Voice Omnibus
May 2013 Survey
Pupil behaviour
Research Report
July 2013
Harriet Weaving & Helen Aston
NFER
Contents
List of tables
3
Executive Summary
5
Introduction
8
Context
8
Analysis of findings
10
The sample
10
Age group of respondents
10
Length of time in teaching post
11
Standards of pupil behaviour
11
Pupil behaviour management and training
13
Teachers’ disciplinary powers
16
Mobile phone policies
18
Physical intervention
20
Parents’ respect for teacher authority
23
Causes of poor behaviour
24
Support to manage pupil behaviour
26
Conclusions and implications for the client
31
Supporting information
33
Annex 1: Cross-tabulations of questions by age
39
Annex 2: Cross-tabulations of questions by length of service
41
Annex 3: Cross-tabulations of questions by gender
45
Annex 4: Cross-tabulation by awareness of the Department's updated advice
46
2
List of tables
Table 1 Please indicate your age group.......................................................................... 10
Table 2 Please indicate how long you have been in teaching. ........................................ 11
Table 3 How would you rate the pupil behaviour in your school? ................................... 12
Table 4 I feel well equipped to manage pupil behaviour. ................................................ 13
Table 5 Appropriate training to manage pupil behaviour is available in my school for all
classroom teachers. ........................................................................................................ 14
Table 6 In my view, senior leaders in my school have more opportunities than classroom
teachers to access training to manage pupil behaviour. ................................................. 15
Table 7 Are you aware of the Department's updated advice on the powers teachers have
to discipline pupils? ......................................................................................................... 16
Table 8 Do you feel confident using the powers you have to discipline pupils? .............. 17
Table 9 Does your school use same day detentions? .................................................... 18
Table 10 Does your school ban or limit pupils' use of mobile phones? ........................... 19
Table 11 Do teachers in your school confiscate phones from pupils who have
contravened a ban or limits on the use of mobile phones? ............................................. 20
Table 12 Would you use physical means to remove a disruptive pupil from the
classroom? ..................................................................................................................... 21
Table 13 Would you use physical means to break up a fight between pupils if you judged
it necessary to do so? ..................................................................................................... 22
Table 14 To what extent, if at all, do you agree that generally parents respect a teacher's
authority to discipline pupils? .......................................................................................... 23
Table 15 Research has shown that special educational needs and disability are factors in
some pupils' challenging behaviour. Discounting these medical factors, what do you see
as the main two factors causing poor behaviour in schools? .......................................... 25
Table 16 Does your school have a clear and comprehensive behaviour policy? ............ 27
Table 17 Does your school publicise its policy on pupil behaviour to the whole school
community (i.e. to staff, pupils and parents)? ................................................................. 27
Table 18 Does your school enforce its policy on pupil behaviour? ................................. 28
3
Table 19 Are you confident that senior staff will support you when you discipline a pupil?
........................................................................................................................................ 29
Table 20 Would you be reluctant to talk about behaviour management difficulties
because you would worry other staff will think your teaching ability is poor? .................. 30
Table 21 How would you rate the pupil behaviour in your school? ................................. 39
Table 22 I feel well equipped to manage pupil behaviour ............................................... 39
Table 23 To what extent, if at all, do you agree that generally parents respect a teacher's
authority to discipline pupils? .......................................................................................... 39
Table 24 Research has shown that special educational needs and disability are factors in
some pupils' challenging behaviour. Discounting these medical factors, what do you see
as the main two factors causing poor behaviour in schools? .......................................... 40
Table 25 How would you rate the pupil behaviour in your school? ................................. 41
Table 26 I feel well equipped to manage pupil behaviour ............................................... 41
Table 27 Appropriate training to manage pupil behaviour is available in my school for all
classroom teachers ......................................................................................................... 41
Table 28 In my view, senior leaders in my school have more opportunities than
classroom teachers to access training to manage pupil behaviour ................................. 42
Table 29 Would you use physical means to remove a disruptive pupil from the
classroom? ..................................................................................................................... 42
Table 30 Would you use physical means to break up a fight between pupils if you judged
it necessary to do so? ..................................................................................................... 42
Table 31 To what extent, if at all, do you agree that generally parents respect a teacher's
authority to discipline pupils? .......................................................................................... 43
Table 32 Research has shown that special educational needs and disability are factors in
some pupils' challenging behaviour. Discounting these medical factors, what do you see
as the main two factors causing poor behaviour in schools? .......................................... 44
Table 33 Would you use physical means to remove a disruptive pupil from the
classroom? ..................................................................................................................... 45
Table 34 Would you use physical means to break up a fight between pupils if you judged
it necessary to do so? ..................................................................................................... 45
Table 35 Do you feel confident using the powers you have to discipline pupils? ............ 46
4
Executive Summary
The Department for Education (DfE) submitted nine questions to NFER’s Teacher Voice
Omnibus Survey in May 2013. The survey asked a sample of just over 1,700 teachers
from a range of schools questions on their perceptions of pupil behaviour; training and
support in behaviour management; teacher powers and school policies on behaviour and
on pupils’ use of mobile phones; and perceptions around the causes of poor pupil
behaviour and parents’ respect for a teacher’s authority to discipline pupils. Two of these
questions were also included in the Teacher Voice surveys in June 2008 and February
2012, which allows comparisons over time for these questions.

Respondents were largely positive about the standard of pupil behaviour in their
schools: 77 per cent of teachers said that the standard of behaviour is ‘good’ or
‘very good’, which was similar to the 2012 survey (76%) and an increase of seven
percentage points compared with the 2008 survey. Perceptions about pupil
behaviour were less positive amongst secondary compared with primary teachers
in May 2013: 26 per cent said pupil behaviour is ‘very good’, compared with 42 per
cent of primary teachers.

The proportion of teachers rating pupil behaviour in their school as ‘very good’ has
increased to 34 per cent in 2013, from 26 per cent in 2008 and 30 per cent in
2012.

The majority of the sample (87%) felt well equipped to manage pupil behaviour,
representing a slight increase from 85 per cent in 2012, and 83 per cent in 2008.
In 2013, only four per cent of respondents disagreed with this statement.

Around half of teachers agreed that appropriate training to manage pupil
behaviour is available in their school for all classroom teachers (51%). Just over a
fifth of teachers (22%) disagreed with this statement. Primary teachers were more
positive than secondary teachers about the availability of training: 55 per cent
agreed, compared to 47 per cent of those from the secondary sector.

The findings relating to awareness of the updated advice on powers to discipline
pupils were mixed: 42 per cent of respondents were aware of the updated advice;
53 per cent were unaware; and five per cent responded ‘Don’t know’. Secondary
school respondents and senior leaders were more likely than others to be aware of
the updated advice.

Overall, 61 per cent of respondents said that they felt confident using the powers
they had to discipline pupils. Confidence in using disciplinary powers was higher
amongst primary respondents than secondary respondents and amongst senior
leaders than classroom teachers.

Of those respondents who said that they were aware of the updated advice, 69 per
cent felt confident in using their disciplinary powers and a quarter (24%) did not
feel confident.
5

Same day detentions appear to be more widely used by secondary schools than
primary schools: 43 per cent of secondary respondents said that their school uses
same day detentions, compared to just 18 per cent of primary school respondents.

The vast majority of respondents indicated that their school has some level of ban
or limitation on pupils’ mobile phone usage on school premises; only three per
cent reported not having any limitation in place in their school. Limiting what pupils
can do with mobile phones during the whole school day was the most commonly
reported policy (39%), with a slightly smaller proportion (34%) reporting that their
school bans pupils from bringing mobile phones on to school premises and a fifth
(22%) reporting that their school only limits use during lesson time. Teachers from
primary schools were proportionally more likely to say that their school applies a
total ban on mobile phones being brought on to school premises.

Just under a third (30%) of teachers said that they would use physical means to
remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom, almost a fifth (19%) reported that
they would not do this although their school allowed it, while a third (33%) said that
they would not and their school did not allow it. A much larger proportion of
teachers said that they would use physical means to break up a fight between
pupils (72%).

Over half (53%) of respondents agreed that generally parents respect a teacher’s
authority to discipline pupils, and a further four per cent strongly agreed with this
statement. Around a quarter (22%) disagreed with this statement and four per cent
strongly disagreed with it.

When asked what they viewed as the most common factors causing poor
behaviour in schools (excluding special educational needs and other medical
factors), the most commonly selected factors were related to parental influences or
the home environment. Almost three-quarters (72%) of respondents saw ‘lack of
parental support or poor parenting skills’ as the most common factor in poor
behaviour, and ‘parental lack of respect for teachers and authority’ was the second
most frequently selected factor (22%).

Overall, the vast majority of teachers reported that their school does have a ‘clear
and comprehensive’ behaviour policy in place (93%). These were often publicised
and enforced by respondents’ schools.

When asked if they were confident that senior staff would support them when
disciplining a pupil, 57 per cent said that they ‘always’ felt confident, and 27 per
cent said they ‘sometimes’ felt confident in this. Primary school respondents were
more likely than secondary school respondents to be confident in receiving
support (91%, compared to 78% of secondary teachers).

Seventy per cent of teachers said that they would not be reluctant to talk about
behaviour management problems because they would worry that other staff would
think that their teaching ability is poor. Just five per cent said that such concerns
6
would ‘always’ create a reluctance to discuss such issues, while just under a
quarter (24%) said this would ‘sometimes’ be the case.
7
Introduction
The Department for Education (DfE) submitted nine questions to NFER’s Teacher Voice
Omnibus Survey in May 2013. The questions covered the following topics:

Perceptions of pupil behaviour and managing pupil behaviour.

Awareness of the powers teachers have to discipline pupils, and confidence in
using these powers.

School policies regarding pupils’ use of mobile phones.

Physical intervention by teachers in situations of challenging behaviour.

Perceptions of parents’ respect for teacher’s authority to discipline pupils.

The causes of poor behaviour in schools.

Support to manage pupil behaviour.
This report provides an analysis of the responses to the questions, along with supporting
information about the survey. Where appropriate, the results are presented by school
phase (primary and secondary), by seniority of respondent (classroom teachers or senior
leaders), by teacher age group, by years of teaching experience and by gender. The
Annexes contain the cross-tabulation findings (Tables 21 to 35).
Some questions were also submitted to the Teacher Voice surveys in June 2008 and in
February 2012. Where relevant, comparisons over time have been made.
Context
Ensuring good behaviour in schools is one of the Government’s top priorities and central
to its aim of closing the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers.
In support of this priority the Government has introduced a range of reforms including:
changes to the law to strengthen teachers’ powers to discipline pupils; simplifying the
Department’s advice to schools so it is clearer to teachers what they can do in relation to
disciplining pupils; and making schools more accountable for their effectiveness in
managing behaviour and tackling bullying through the new Ofsted inspection framework.
Within this context, the DfE wished to explore awareness of the Department’s updated
advice from April 20121 on the powers teachers have to discipline pupils, and teacher
1
DfE (2012). Behaviour and Discipline in Schools: A guide for head teachers and school staff [online].
Available:
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/munro/behaviour%20and%20discipline%20in%20schools%20gui
de%20for%20headteachers%20and%20school%20staff.pdf [7 June 2013]
8
views and perceptions regarding pupil behaviour. Therefore, just over a year on from
these reforms taking effect, this research provided a timely opportunity to gather
feedback from teachers in relation to pupil behaviour.
9
Analysis of findings
The sample
A sample of 1703 teachers completed the survey. The sample was weighted to ensure
that it was representative and included teachers from a wide range of school governance
types and subject areas. Sample numbers were sufficient to allow for comparisons
between the primary and secondary sectors. Detailed information about the sample is
given in the supplementary section of this report.
Age group of respondents
As can be seen in Table 1 below, around a third of respondents were in the 30 to 39
years age group (33%), with similar proportions of respondents aged 40 to 49 years
(29%) and 50 years or over (30%). Very few respondents were under 25 years of age
(just one per cent overall). There was very little difference in the age profile of
respondents by phase or seniority. This respondent profile is consistent with the previous
reports in 2008 and 2012.
Please note that, due to the small number of teachers in the under 25 age range, we
have not reported on these respondents’ data in relation to any cross-tabulations by age
range
Table 1 Please indicate your age group.
All
Primary
Secondary
Less than 25
1%
1%
1%
25-29
7%
7%
8%
30-39
33%
32%
33%
40-49
29%
30%
27%
50 or over
30%
30%
31%
Local base (N)
1690
857
836
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
10
Length of time in teaching post
Table 2 presents information about respondents’ length of time in teaching. In line with
the previous reports, the large majority of respondents (92%) had been in teaching for
more than five years. Seven per cent of respondents had been teaching for between one
and five years; while only two per cent were Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs). There
were only slight variations by phase.
Please note that, due to the small number of teachers in the NQT category, we have not
reported on these respondents’ data in relation to cross-tabulations by length of service.
Table 2 Please indicate how long you have been in teaching.
All
Primary
Secondary
I am a NQT (newly qualified teacher)
2%
1%
2%
Between one and five years
7%
5%
8%
More than five years
92%
94%
90%
Local base (N)
1685
853
835
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Standards of pupil behaviour
Teachers were asked to rate the standard of pupil behaviour in their school. As can be
seen in Table 3, responses were largely positive: 77 per cent of teachers described pupil
behaviour in their school as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. This suggests little change from the
February 2012 survey, in which 76 per cent of teachers responded this way. In 2008, 70
per cent of teachers responded ‘good’ or ‘very good’.
The proportion of teachers rating pupil behaviour in their school as ‘very good’ has
increased to 34 per cent in 2013, from 26 per cent in 2008 and 30 per cent in 2012.
Meanwhile, over time the percentage of teachers who rated pupil behaviour in their
school as ‘good’ has fluctuated very slightly, selected by 44 per cent in 2008, 46 per cent
in 2012 and 43 per cent in 2013. The overall trend is therefore one of steady
improvement in perceptions of behaviour.
In the latest survey results, only five per cent of teachers felt that pupil behaviour in their
school was ‘poor’ and just one per cent rated it as ‘very poor’. These figures remained
very steady when compared to 2008 and 2012 findings (six per cent rated behaviour as
11
‘poor’ and one per cent as ‘very poor’ in 2008; in 2012 the equivalent proportions were
five per cent and one per cent).
Table 3 How would you rate the pupil behaviour in your school?
All
Primary
Secondary
Very good
34%
42%
26%
Good
43%
43%
42%
Acceptable
16%
10%
23%
Poor
5%
4%
7%
Very poor
1%
1%
2%
Don't know
<1%
0%
<1%
Local base (N)
1697
862
838
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Perceptions about pupil behaviour were less positive amongst secondary respondents
than their primary school counterparts. For example, 42 per cent of primary respondents
said that pupil behaviour was ‘very good’ in their school, compared to only 26 per cent of
secondary respondents. Conversely, only 10 per cent of primary teachers rated pupil
behaviour as ’acceptable’, compared with 23 per cent of secondary respondents. Similar
proportions of teachers rated pupil behaviour as ‘good’, ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. This pattern
was also seen in previous Teacher Voice surveys.
Looking at variations by seniority, similar proportions of classroom teachers and senior
leaders described pupil behaviour as ‘good’ (43% and 41% respectively). However,
proportionally more senior leaders rated the standard of pupil behaviour as ‘very good’
(52%, compared with 30% of classroom teachers). Higher proportions of classroom
teachers than senior leaders rated pupil behaviour as ‘acceptable’ or ‘poor’, however.
Again in line with previous survey findings, older teachers were most positive in their
perceptions of pupil behaviour (see Table 21). For example, amongst those aged 50
years and over, 40 per cent rated pupil behaviour in their school as ‘very good’. Whereas
amongst those aged 25 to 29 years, 30 per cent selected ‘very good’.
Looking at length of service in teaching (see Table 25), those who had been in teaching
for more than five years were most positive, as was the case in 2008 and 2012. In 2013,
35 per cent of this group rated the standard of behaviour in their school as ‘very good’,
12
compared to a quarter (25%) of those who had been teaching between one and five
years.
Pupil behaviour management and training
The next three questions on the Teacher Voice survey asked respondents about the
extent to which they agreed with a series of statements about behaviour management
and training.
As seen in Table 4 below, the large majority of the respondent sample felt well equipped
to manage pupil behaviour: 87 per cent, representing a slight increase from 85 per cent
in 2012, and 83 per cent in 2008. In 2013, only four per cent of respondents disagreed
with this statement.
Table 4 I feel well equipped to manage pupil behaviour.
All
Primary
Secondary
87%
91%
83%
Neither agree nor disagree
9%
6%
12%
Disagree
4%
3%
5%
Don't know
<1%
0%
<1%
Local base (N)
1697
861
840
Agree
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
When comparing responses between education phases, a higher proportion of primary
school teachers than secondary school teachers agreed that they felt well equipped to
manage pupil behaviour (91% of primary respondents compared to 83% of secondary
respondents). Again these figures have increased slightly when compared to previous
Teacher Voice results; in 2012, 89 per cent of primary and 80 per cent of secondary
respondents respectively agreed that they felt equipped to manage pupil behaviour. And
in 2008, the respective figures were 84 per cent amongst primary school teachers and 81
per cent amongst secondary school teachers.
When examining the differences by seniority, nearly all senior leaders said that they felt
equipped to manage pupil behaviour (96%), compared to 85 per cent of classroom
teachers. These findings are also in line with previous analysis by seniority.
13
Again in line with previous research findings, proportionately more older teachers agreed
with the statement ‘I feel well equipped to manage pupil behaviour’ (see Table 22).
However, as seen in 2012, the differences between the three older age groups were
relatively small. Amongst those aged 30 to 39 years, 40 to 49 years, and 50 years and
over, the proportions agreeing that they felt equipped to manage pupil behaviour were
very similar at 88 per cent, 87 per cent and 88 per cent respectively. Amongst those aged
25 to 29, 81 per cent said they felt equipped to manage pupil behaviour.
In line with previous findings, the longest serving teachers gave the most positive
responses in terms of feeling equipped to manage pupil behaviour. For example,
amongst those who had been in teaching for more than five years, 88 per cent agreed
that they felt equipped to manage pupil behaviour, compared to 83 per cent of those who
had been in teaching between one and five years (Table 26).
The findings as presented in Table 5 show that overall, around half of teachers agreed
that appropriate training to manage pupil behaviour is available in their school (51%).
Just over a quarter of teachers (26%) neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement,
and just over a fifth (22%) disagreed.
Table 5 Appropriate training to manage pupil behaviour is available in my school for all classroom
teachers.
All
Primary
Secondary
Agree
51%
55%
47%
Neither agree nor disagree
26%
25%
27%
Disagree
22%
19%
24%
2%
2%
2%
1694
859
839
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
When looking across education phase, it appears that a greater proportion of primary
teachers than their secondary counterparts held positive views about the availability of
appropriate training to manage pupil behaviour. For example, 55 per cent of primary
school respondents agreed with this statement, compared to 47 per cent of secondary
school respondents. In addition, a much higher proportion of senior leaders agreed with
this statement than classroom teachers; 77 per cent compared to 44 per cent.
14
Around half of those who had been in teaching for one to five years or five years or
longer agreed that appropriate training was available in their school to manage pupil
behaviour (see Table 27).
Next, respondents were asked for their level of agreement with the following statement:
‘In my view, senior leaders in my school have more opportunities than classroom
teachers to access training to manage pupil behaviour’.
Views were mixed. As seen in Table 6, over a third (36%) of teachers disagreed with this
statement, while a quarter of all respondents (25%) agreed; and 30 per cent neither
agreed nor disagreed.
Table 6 In my view, senior leaders in my school have more opportunities than classroom teachers
to access training to manage pupil behaviour.
All
Primary
Secondary
Agree
25%
21%
29%
Neither agree nor disagree
30%
29%
30%
Disagree
36%
42%
30%
Don't know
10%
8%
11%
Local base (N)
1692
857
838
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
The split in opinion can also be seen when exploring the data across education phase.
Amongst secondary school teachers, opinions were very evenly split in response to this
question: 29 per cent agreed with this statement, whilst 30 per cent disagreed, and 30
per cent neither agreed nor disagreed. In contrast, a higher proportion of primary school
respondents disagreed with this statement (42%), while only 21 per cent of primary
school respondents felt that there were more training opportunities for senior leaders.
A higher proportion of classroom teachers felt that this disparity in training opportunities
occurred in their school, when compared with the figures for senior leaders. Just 13 per
cent of senior leaders agreed that this was the case in their school, compared to 28 per
cent of classroom teachers.
The data on length of time in teaching (see Table 28) shows that teachers who had been
in teaching for more than five years were proportionally most likely to disagree that senior
leaders have more opportunities than classroom teachers to access training to manage
pupil behaviour. Of this group, 37 per cent disagreed, compared to 26 per cent of those
15
who had been in teaching between one and five years. In contrast, the proportions of
teachers who agreed with the statement varied only marginally by length of service (23%
of teachers with one to five years of service, and 25% of teachers who had taught for
more than five years said this).
Teachers’ disciplinary powers
The next area of questions on the Teacher Voice survey asked about awareness of the
Department’s updated advice on the powers teachers have to discipline pupils, and
whether teachers feel confident in using these powers. Teachers were also asked
whether their school uses same day detentions.
The findings relating to awareness of the updated advice on powers to discipline pupils
were mixed. Table 7 shows that 42 per cent of respondents were aware of the updated
advice; 53 per cent were unaware, and five per cent responded ‘Don’t know’.
Awareness of the updated advice appeared to be somewhat more widespread amongst
secondary school respondents than primary school respondents; 46 per cent of
secondary teachers were aware of the updated advice, compared to 38 per cent of
primary teachers. A far greater proportion of senior leaders than classroom teachers
were aware of the updated advice: 70 per cent and 35 per cent respectively.
Table 7 Are you aware of the Department's updated advice on the powers teachers have to
discipline pupils?
All
Primary
Secondary
Yes
42%
38%
46%
No
53%
56%
49%
5%
5%
5%
1699
863
840
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Respondents were then asked to indicate whether or not they felt confident using the
powers they have to discipline pupils. As seen in Table 8, the majority of teachers
reported feeling confident in using these powers (61%), while just under a quarter (23%)
said they did not feel confident. The remaining 16 per cent responded ‘Don’t know’ to this
question.
16
Table 8 Do you feel confident using the powers you have to discipline pupils?
All
Primary
Secondary
Yes
61%
66%
57%
No
23%
17%
29%
Don't know
16%
17%
14%
Local base (N)
1697
862
839
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Exploration of the data by phase shows that confidence in using disciplinary powers was
higher amongst primary respondents than secondary respondents. Sixty-six per cent of
primary teachers felt confident in using the powers they have to discipline pupils,
compared to 57 per cent of secondary teachers.
Senior leaders felt more confident in this area than classroom teachers: 78 per cent of
senior leaders said that they felt confident in using their powers, compared to 57 per cent
of classroom teachers.
Our analysis next looked at whether teachers’ confidence in using their powers varied
according to whether or not respondents were aware of the updated advice from the DfE
(see Table 35). Of the sub-group who said that they were aware of the updated advice,
69 per cent felt confident in using their disciplinary powers, a quarter (24%) did not feel
confident, and just seven per cent responded ‘Don’t know’.
Amongst those who were not aware of the updated advice on powers to discipline,
confidence was still fairly high, with over half reporting feeling confident in their powers to
do so (55%). Nonetheless, this represents a difference of 14 percentage points, when
compared with the proportion of teachers who were confident and aware of the updated
advice (69%).
A much larger proportion of the sub-group who were not aware of the updated advice
responded ‘Don’t know’ (22%) than those who were aware of it. Of those who did not
know whether they were aware of the updated DfE advice, the majority felt confident in
using their powers to discipline (65%); a very small proportion said they did not feel
confident (eight per cent); and 28 per cent said they did not know whether they felt
confident in using their powers.
17
The next question asked respondents whether their school uses same day detentions.
Table 9 shows that overall, 30 per cent of respondents indicated that their school uses
these, while around two-thirds said that their school does not (67%).
Table 9 Does your school use same day detentions?
All
Primary
Secondary
Yes
30%
18%
43%
No
67%
79%
53%
Don't know
3%
3%
4%
Local base (N)
1699
863
840
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Same day detentions appear to be more widely used by secondary schools than primary
schools: 43 per cent of secondary respondents said that their school uses same day
detentions, compared to just 18 per cent of primary school respondents. Meanwhile, a
greater proportion of senior leaders than classroom teachers reported that their school
does not use same day detention (75% and 65% respectively indicated this).
Mobile phone policies
Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not their school bans or limits pupils’ use
of mobile phones. The results are presented in Table 10 below.
The vast majority of respondents indicated that their school has some level of ban or
limitation on pupils’ mobile phone usage on school premises; only three per cent reported
not having any such ban or limitation in place in their school.
Limiting what pupils can do with mobile phones during the whole school day was the
most commonly reported policy, with 39 per cent of teachers giving this response. A
slightly smaller proportion (34%) reported that their school bans pupils from bringing
mobile phones on to school premises, while a fifth (22%) reported that their school only
limits pupil use of mobile phones during lesson time.
18
Table 10 Does your school ban or limit pupils' use of mobile phones?
All
Primary
Secondary
Yes, my school bans pupils from
bringing mobile phones onto school
premises
34%
53%
14%
Yes, my school limits what pupils
can do with mobile phones during
lesson time only (e.g. cannot make
calls/texts or have to be switched off)
22%
3%
42%
Yes, my school limits what pupils
can do with mobile phones during
the whole school day (e.g. cannot
make calls/texts or have to be
switched off or stored away)
39%
38%
39%
No, my school does not ban or limit
pupils' use of mobile phones on
school premises
3%
2%
4%
Don't know
2%
4%
<1%
1691
858
837
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
A much higher proportion of primary schools than secondary schools apply a total ban on
mobile phones being brought on to school premises: over half (53%) of primary
respondents reported that this is the policy in their school, compared to only 14 per cent
of secondary respondents. In each school phase, similar proportions of teachers reported
that their school limits what pupils can do with their mobile phones during the whole
school day (38% amongst primary teachers, and 39% amongst secondary teachers). In
terms of limits being placed on mobile phone use during lesson time only, this type of
policy was reported by a much larger proportion of secondary school respondents (42%
compared to just three per cent of primary respondents).
There was some level of variation by seniority on all three of the different types of bans or
limitations. Classroom teachers were proportionally more likely than senior leaders to
report that their school limits pupils’ mobile phone use in lesson time only: 24 per cent of
classroom teachers indicated this, compared to 15 per cent of senior leaders.
Additionally, slightly higher proportions of senior leaders than classroom teachers
reported that their school limits what pupils can do with their mobile phones for the whole
19
school day (44% and 38% respectively), or that their school bans mobile phones on
school premises (39% and 33% respectively).
Teachers who reported a ban or limitation on pupils’ use of mobile phones, were also
asked whether or not mobile phones are confiscated from pupils who have contravened
the policy. Table 11 presents the findings for this question.
The majority of teachers said that mobile phones are confiscated in their school, either
routinely or rarely: 42 per cent said that teachers routinely confiscate mobile phones from
pupils who contravene the policy, and 38 per cent said that teachers rarely do this in their
school. A much smaller proportion (11%) said that teachers in their school never
confiscate mobile phones.
Table 11 Do teachers in your school confiscate phones from pupils who have contravened a ban or
limits on the use of mobile phones?
All
Primary
Secondary
Yes, teachers routinely do this
42%
19%
66%
Yes, teachers rarely do this
38%
43%
32%
No, teachers never do this
11%
21%
1%
9%
16%
1%
1598
802
799
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
There were notable differences by phase. A much higher proportion of secondary school
respondents said that teachers routinely confiscate mobile phones in their school (66%),
compared to just 19 per cent of primary school teachers giving this response. In addition,
primary school teachers were proportionally more likely to say that this rarely happens in
their school when compared to secondary school teachers; 43 per cent and 32 per cent
respectively. While 21 per cent of primary respondents said that teachers never
confiscate mobile phones this in their school, this was the case for only one per cent of
secondary respondents.
Physical intervention
The next section of the Teacher Voice survey asked teachers if they would use physical
intervention in situations of challenging behaviour themselves and, if not, whether their
school allows it.
20
Table 12 shows that just under a third of teachers said that they would use physical
means to remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom (30%). Almost a fifth (19%)
reported that they would not do this although their school allowed it, while a third (33%)
said that they would not and their school does not allow it.
Table 12 Would you use physical means to remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom?
All
Primary
Secondary
Yes
30%
46%
12%
No, although my school allows this
19%
19%
20%
No, my school does not allow this
33%
18%
50%
Don't know
18%
17%
18%
Local base (N)
1696
862
837
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Interestingly, primary school respondents more frequently reported that they would use
physical means to remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom than secondary school
respondents (46% and 12% respectively). A much higher proportion of secondary school
respondents said they would not use physical intervention in this situation and that their
school does not allow it (50%), compared to just 18 per cent of primary school
respondents.
Senior leaders were proportionally more likely to say that they would use physical
intervention than classroom teachers. Almost half (48%) of senior leaders said that they
would use physical means to remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom, compared
with 25 per cent of classroom teachers. One further interesting difference to report in
terms of seniority is that 21 per cent of senior leaders said that their school does not
allow the use of physical means to remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom,
compared to 37 per cent of classroom teachers.
Responses were explored in relation to gender of teachers (see Table 33) and their
length of time in the profession (see Table 29). There was only slight variation by gender;
27 per cent of males said they would use physical means to remove a disruptive pupil
from the classroom, as did 31 per cent of females. Variation by length of service was
slightly greater: amongst those teachers who had been in the profession for more than
five years, 31 per cent said that they would use physical intervention in this situation,
compared to 22 per cent of those who had been teaching between one and five years.
21
Table 13 shows that overall, a much larger proportion of teachers said that they would
use physical means to break up a fight between pupils (72%) than the proportion who
said that they would use physical means to remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom
(30%).
Table 13 Would you use physical means to break up a fight between pupils if you judged it
necessary to do so?
All
Primary
Secondary
Yes
72%
73%
72%
No, although my school allows this
10%
9%
11%
No, my school does not allow this
5%
5%
6%
Don't know
13%
13%
12%
Local base (N)
1698
863
838
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
The responses between primary and secondary school respondents were very similar.
For example, 73 per cent of primary school teachers and 72 per cent of secondary school
teachers said that they would use physical means to break up a fight between pupils.
Very small proportions of respondents from either school phase said that they would not
use physical means in this situation and that their school does not allow this type of
physical intervention.
Senior leaders were proportionally more likely to indicate that they would use physical
means to break up a fight between pupils than classroom teachers: 85 per cent of senior
leaders said that they would use physical means in this situation, compared to 69 per
cent of classroom teachers.
There was a difference in responses to this question between genders (see Table 34).
Male teachers were proportionally more likely to report that they would use physical
means in this situation than female teachers (82% of males said that they would use
physical means to break up a fight between pupils, compared to 69% of females).
There were no major differences to report between the responses of teachers who had
served between one and five years in post, and more than five years in post (see Table
30).
22
Parents’ respect for teacher authority
Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed that generally parents respect a
teacher’s authority to discipline pupils. The results are presented in Table 14 below.
The results show that over half (53%) of respondents agreed that generally parents
respect a teacher’s authority to discipline pupils, and a further four per cent strongly
agreed with this statement. Around a quarter (22%) disagreed with this statement and
four per cent strongly disagreed with it. A further 16 per cent neither agreed nor
disagreed.
Table 14 To what extent, if at all, do you agree that generally parents respect a teacher's authority
to discipline pupils?
All
Primary
Secondary
4%
4%
5%
Agree
53%
53%
53%
Neither agree nor disagree
16%
16%
16%
Disagree
22%
23%
21%
4%
4%
5%
Don't know
<1%
1%
<1%
Local base (N)
1697
862
837
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
There were no notable differences in responses by phase, but some by seniority. In
particular, a slightly higher proportion of senior leaders (65%) either agreed or strongly
agreed that parents generally respect teacher’s authority to discipline pupils, compared to
classroom teachers (55%).
Looking at the data broken down by age, perceptions tended to be more positive about
parents’ respect for a teacher’s authority to discipline pupils among those aged 50 or
over (see Table 23). For example, 62 per cent of this age group either agreed or strongly
agreed that parents generally respect this authority; compared to 55 per cent of those
aged 40 to 49 years; 58 per cent of those aged 30 to 39 years; and, 47 per cent of those
aged 25 to 29 years.
23
In terms of length of service comparisons (see Table 31), there were no notable
differences between groups of teachers who had served at least one year: 57 per cent
agreed or strongly agreed that generally parents respect a teacher’s authority to
discipline pupils.
Causes of poor behaviour
Respondents were asked to identify what they saw as the main two factors causing poor
behaviour in schools (discounting special educational needs and disability). Respondents
were presented with a list of possible factors and asked to select two. They also had the
option to select ‘other’ and specify another factor not included in the original list. The
results are presented in Table 15 below.
24
Table 15 Research has shown that special educational needs and disability are factors in some
pupils' challenging behaviour. Discounting these medical factors, what do you see as the main two
factors causing poor behaviour in schools?
All
Primary
Secondary
Lack of parental support/poor parenting skills
72%
81%
61%
Parental lack of respect for teachers and authority
22%
25%
18%
Pupils and families with low aspirations
16%
13%
20%
Negative cultural and media influences on children 14%
14%
15%
Socio-economic factors
10%
11%
10%
Pupils do not come ready to learn each morning
10%
7%
12%
Lack of support from senior managers in schools
9%
5%
13%
Failure to intervene early if there is an issue
regarding pupil behaviour
9%
8%
10%
Restrictive or inappropriate curriculum
8%
7%
9%
Class sizes are too large
8%
6%
9%
Pupils do not come ready to learn at age 5
5%
8%
1%
Teachers have insufficient powers to manage pupil 5%
behaviour
4%
5%
Lack of enforcement of the school rules by teachers 5%
2%
8%
Teachers' inadequate skills/training in behaviour
management
4%
4%
5%
Other
4%
4%
4%
Don't know
<1%
1%
<1%
Local base (N)
1695
861
837
Respondents were able to select more than one response so percentages may sum to more than 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
The most commonly selected factors seen as causing poor behaviour in schools related
to parental influences or the home environment. By far the most commonly selected
factor was ‘lack of parental support or poor parenting skills’. Almost three-quarters (72%)
of respondents saw this as one of the main factors causing poor behaviour in schools.
25
‘Parental lack of respect for teachers and authority’ was the second most frequently
selected factor, selected by 22 per cent of all teachers.
There were both differences and similarities in teachers’ responses by phase. ‘Lack of
parental support/poor parenting skills’ was the most common response from both primary
and secondary teachers (81% and 61% of whom selected it, respectively), although there
was a twenty percentage point variation by phase. However, while ‘parental lack of
respect for teachers and authority’ was the second most frequently selected factor
among primary respondents (selected by 25%), it ranked third for secondary respondents
(18%). For secondary teachers, ‘pupils and families with low aspirations’ (selected by
20%) was the second most common response, proportionally.
When examining the responses by seniority, the two most frequently selected factors
were ‘lack of parental support or poor parenting skills’ and ‘parental lack of respect for
teachers and authority’ for both senior leaders and classroom teachers. ‘Lack of support
from senior managers in schools’ was seen as more of a problem amongst classroom
teachers than amongst senior leaders (11% and one per cent respectively). Similarly,
‘class sizes are too large’ was selected more frequently by classroom teachers than by
senior leaders (ten per cent and two per cent respectively).
When exploring the data by age group and length of service, there was largely
consensus (see Tables 24 and 32). Among every age and length of service group the
most frequently selected factor seen to cause poor behaviour was ‘lack of parental
support/poor parenting skills’.
Support to manage pupil behaviour
The final section of the survey investigated behaviour policies, management support for
pupil discipline and talking about behaviour management difficulties.
Firstly, respondents were asked whether their school has a clear and comprehensive
behaviour policy. The results are presented in Table 16 below.
Overall, the vast majority of teachers reported that their school does have a clear and
comprehensive behaviour policy in place (93%). This was the case for a slightly higher
proportion of primary than secondary teachers (96% and 91% respectively).
26
Table 16 Does your school have a clear and comprehensive behaviour policy?
All
Primary
Secodary
Yes
93%
96%
91%
No
6%
3%
8%
Don't know
1%
1%
1%
1699
863
840
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Looking at differences in seniority levels, proportionately more senior leaders reported
that their school had a clear and comprehensive behaviour policy in place than did
classroom teachers (98% and 92% respectively did so).
Teachers were then asked whether their school publicises its policy on pupil behaviour to
the whole school community (i.e. to staff, pupils and parents). Again, as seen in Table 17,
the large majority of teachers said ‘Yes’ (85%). Ten per cent of teachers said that their
school did not publicise its policy to the whole school community.
Table 17 Does your school publicise its policy on pupil behaviour to the whole school community
(i.e. to staff, pupils and parents)?
All
Primary
Secondary
Yes
85%
88%
83%
No
10%
7%
12%
5%
5%
6%
1699
863
840
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Looking at differences between school phases, a slightly higher proportion of primary
teachers reported that their school publicises its policy on pupil behaviour compared with
their secondary counterparts (88% of primary teachers and 83% of secondary school
teachers reported this).
27
In terms of seniority, a greater proportion of senior leaders reported that their school
publicises its behaviour policy than did classroom teachers; nearly all senior leaders
responded positively to this question (95%), compared to 83 per cent of classroom
teachers.
Respondents were then asked to indicate whether or not their school enforces its policy
on pupil behaviour. Table 18 presents their responses. Overall, nearly all respondents
(96%) said that their school enforces its policy on pupil behaviour either always or
sometimes (57% said this always happens, and 39% said it sometimes happens). Only
three per cent of teachers said that their school does not enforce its policy on pupil
behaviour.
Table 18 Does your school enforce its policy on pupil behaviour?
All
Primary
Secondary
Yes always
57%
69%
45%
Yes sometimes
39%
29%
50%
No
3%
2%
4%
Don't know
1%
1%
<1%
1699
863
840
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Primary school teachers were proportionally considerably more likely than secondary
school teachers to say that their school always enforces its policy on pupil behaviour: 69
per cent of primary teachers said this always happens in their school, compared to 45 per
cent of secondary teachers. In addition, a much greater proportion of senior leaders
(84%) reported that their school always enforces its policy on pupil behaviour compared
to classroom teachers (51%).
The next question asked respondents if they were confident that senior staff would
support them when disciplining a pupil. Table 19 shows that 84 per cent responded
positively; 57 per cent said that they ‘always’ felt confident that senior staff would support
them when disciplining a pupil, and 27 per cent said they ‘sometimes’ felt confident in
this.
28
Table 19 Are you confident that senior staff will support you when you discipline a pupil?
All
Primary
Secondary
Yes always
57%
70%
44%
Yes sometimes
27%
21%
34%
No
15%
9%
22%
1%
1%
1%
1698
862
840
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Levels of confidence in receiving support from senior staff when disciplining a pupil were
proportionately higher amongst primary school respondents than secondary school
respondents. Overall, 91 per cent of primary teachers felt in some way confident in
receiving this support, compared to 78 per cent of secondary teachers. However, looking
at the figures for those who ‘always’ felt confident reveals a larger variation by phase: 70
per cent of primary respondents gave this response, compared to 44 per cent of
secondary respondents.
Further marked differences were seen in responses between different seniority levels of
teachers. Very few senior leaders said that they did not feel confident in receiving
support from senior colleagues when disciplining a pupil (just one per cent), compared to
18 per cent of classroom teachers. Perhaps not surprisingly, a large proportion of senior
leaders said that they ‘always’ felt confident in receiving senior staff support when
disciplining a pupil (89%), compared with just under half of classroom teachers (49%).
The final question in this section investigated reluctance to discuss behaviour
management difficulties. The results are presented in Table 20.
Reassuringly, 70 per cent of teachers said that they would not be reluctant to talk about
behaviour management problems because they would worry that other staff would think
that their teaching ability is poor. Just five per cent said that such concerns would
‘always’ create a reluctance to discuss such issues; while just under a quarter (24%) said
this would ‘sometimes’ be the case.
29
Table 20 Would you be reluctant to talk about behaviour management difficulties because you
would worry other staff will think your teaching ability is poor?
All
Primary
Secondary
5%
4%
7%
Yes sometimes
24%
18%
31%
No
70%
77%
62%
1%
1%
1%
1699
863
840
Yes always
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and
secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Concerns about what other staff would think appeared to be more of an issue for
secondary school teachers than primary school teachers. Overall, 38 per cent of
secondary respondents said such worries would sometimes cause reluctance in
discussing behaviour management difficulties, compared to 22 per cent of primary
respondents. However, across both primary and secondary education phases, the
majority of respondents still reported that this reluctance would not be an issue for them
(77% of primary teachers and 62% of secondary teachers said this).
Additionally, a higher proportion of classroom teachers (33%) said that they would either
‘sometimes’ or ‘always’ be reluctant to discuss behaviour management difficulties
because of worries about what other staff would think, compared to senior leaders (16%).
Overall, 83 per cent of senior leaders said that they would not feel reluctant, compared to
66 per cent of classroom teachers.
30
Conclusions and implications for the client
The findings from this series of questions on teachers’ views around pupil behaviour
indicate that the majority of all teachers were positive about the standard of pupil
behaviour in their school. Comparing the 2013 findings to the 2008 and 2012 surveys,
there is a trend of steadily improving perceptions of behaviour. Very small proportions of
teachers rated pupil behaviour as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ in their schools, a finding which
remains steady when compared to 2008 and 2012 Teacher Voice results.
Some groups were proportionally more likely to have less positive perceptions of pupil
behaviour, however. These included secondary school teachers, classroom teachers and
younger or less experienced teachers.
Encouragingly, the majority of teachers felt well equipped to manage pupil behaviour.
This is true of both primary and secondary teachers. In line with previous survey findings,
proportionally more of the older and more experienced teachers felt well equipped to
manage pupil behaviour than their younger or less experienced colleagues. While this
research did not explore the reasons for these differences, it may be the case that more
opportunities to engage in professional development and/or more experience contribute
to the increased confidence of these groups.
Respondents were divided in their views about whether appropriate training is available
in their school for managing pupil behaviour and whether senior leaders have more
opportunities than classroom teachers to access such training. Primary school teachers
were proportionally more likely to report that appropriate training is available, compared
to their secondary counterparts, while senior leaders were also proportionally more likely
to report this compared to classroom teachers. This may point to a need to provide more
or better behaviour management training.
The findings relating to awareness of the updated advice on teacher powers to
discipline pupils were mixed; around half of respondents were unaware of the updated
advice. Secondary school teachers appeared to be proportionally more aware of the
updated advice than primary school teachers. Also, senior leaders were proportionally
more likely to be aware of the updated advice than classroom teachers. This suggests a
need for increased awareness raising strategies amongst schools about the guidance
available on managing pupil behaviour which is filtered down to all teachers within a
school. Despite awareness of the updated advice not being particularly widespread, 61
per cent of respondents reported that they felt confident in using their powers to discipline
pupils.
Most teachers said that their school had some level of ban or limitation on the use of
mobile phones. Primary school respondents were proportionally more likely to report a
total ban on mobile phones in school, compared to secondary school respondents, who
31
were more likely to report restrictions on the use of mobile phones within the school.
Secondary teachers were also proportionally more likely to confiscate mobile phones
from pupils than their primary colleagues. These differences may reflect the age group of
the pupils in each school phase, and the prevalence of mobile phone usage amongst
different aged pupils.
Teachers more frequently reported that they would use physical intervention to break
up a fight rather than to remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom. Primary school
teachers were proportionally more likely to report that they would use physical means to
remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom compared to their secondary counterparts.
Similarly, male teachers were proportionally more likely to report that they would use
physical intervention to break up a fight than female teachers.
Lack of parental support/poor parenting skills was the most frequently reported factor
causing poor pupil behaviour in schools. Also, a notable minority of teachers reported a
perception that parents do not generally respect their authority to discipline pupils.
This raises an important message that the majority of teachers view pupil behaviour
problems as primarily stemming from the home environment and parental influences and
also may identify an important issue relating to lack of support from parents in dealing
with poor behaviour.
The majority of teachers reported that their schools have clear and comprehensive
behaviour policies in place, and these are often publicised and enforced by the schools.
The findings relating to confidence in support from senior staff when disciplining a
pupil were mixed. Overall, the majority of respondents had some level of confidence in
this type of support. However, levels of confidence were proportionally higher amongst
primary school respondents than secondary school respondents.
Reassuringly, a reluctance to discuss behaviour management difficulties because
teachers would worry that other staff would think their teaching ability was poor, did not
seem to be an issue for the majority of teachers. Secondary and classroom teachers
were most likely to report such concerns.
Overall, these findings present a fairly positive picture of teachers’ perceptions of
behaviour and behaviour management practices in England’s schools.
32
Supporting information
How was the survey conducted?
This report is based on data from the May 2013 survey. A panel of 1703 practicing
teachers from 1331 schools in the maintained sector in England completed the survey.
Teachers completed the survey online between the 10th and 15th May 2013. During the
survey period, a team of experienced coders within the Foundation coded all ‘open’
questions (those without a pre-identified set of responses).
What was the composition of the panel?
The panel included teachers from the full range of roles in primary and secondary
schools, from headteachers to newly qualified class teachers. Fifty one per cent (863) of
the respondents were teaching in primary schools and 49 per cent (840) were teaching in
secondary schools.
How representative of schools nationally were the schools
corresponding to the teachers panel?
There was an under-representation of schools in the highest quintile, and an over
representation in the second highest quintile, in terms of eligibility for free school meals in
the sample of primary schools. In the sample of secondary schools there was underrepresentation in the highest quintile and over-representation in the lowest quintile in
terms of eligibility for free school meals. In the overall sample (primary and secondary
schools) there was under-representation in the highest quintile in terms of eligibility for
free school meals. To address this, weights were calculated using free school meals
factors to create a more balanced sample. Due to the differences between the
populations of primary schools and secondary schools, different weights were created for
primary schools, secondary schools and then for the whole sample overall. The
weightings have been applied to all of the analyses referred to in this commentary and
contained within the tables supplied in electronic format2.
Tables S.1, S.2 and S.3 show the representation of the weighted achieved sample
against the population. Tables S.4 and S.5 show the representation of the weighted
teacher sample by role in non-academies and academies respectively.
2
We did not apply a weighting to schools for which free school meals data was unavailable in the Register
of Schools.
33
Table S.1 Representation of (weighted) primary schools
compared to primary schools nationally
chieveme
and
(Overall performance
by KS2 2011 data)
National
Population
NFER
Sample
%
%
Lowest band
18
14
2nd lowest band
18
17
Middle band
17
19
2nd highest band
21
24
Highest band
25
25
1
0
Lowest 20%
20
20
2nd lowest 20%
20
20
Middle 20%
20
20
2nd highest 20%
20
20
Highest 20%
20
20
Missing
1
0
Infants
8
9
First School
5
4
74
72
First & Middle
0
0
Junior
7
11
Middle deemed Primary
0
0
Academy
5
4
North
31
22
Midlands
32
31
South
37
47
London Borough
11
14
Metropolitan Authorities
21
20
English Unitary Authorities
18
19
Counties
51
47
16753
776
Missing
% eligible FSM
(5 pt scale)
(2010/11)
Infant & Junior (Primary)
Primary school type
Region
Local Authority type
Number of schools
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Some information is not available for all schools and some schools included more than one respondent
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
34
Table S.2 Representation of (weighted) secondary schools
compared to secondary schools nationally
Achievement Band
(Overall performance by
GCSE 2010 data)
National
Population
NFER
Sample
Lowest band
%
17
%
17
2nd lowest band
19
17
Middle band
19
21
2nd highest band
19
21
Highest band
20
19
6
3
Lowest 20%
19
19
2nd lowest 20%
20
20
Middle 20%
19
19
2nd highest 20%
19
19
Highest 20%
19
20
Missing
4
2
Middle
6
3
Secondary Modern
2
1
Comprehensive to 16
21
22
Comprehensive to 18
24
30
5
6
Academies
42
39
North
29
23
Midlands
33
34
South
38
43
London Borough
13
14
Metropolitan Authorities
21
21
English Unitary Authorities
19
20
Counties
47
46
3228
555
Missing
% eligible FSM
(5 pt scale)
(2010/11)
Secondary school type
Grammar
Region
Local Authority type
Number of schools
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Some information is not available for all schools and some schools included more than one respondent
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
35
Table S.3 Representation of all schools (weighted) compared
to all schools nationally
Achievement Band (By KS2
2011 and GCSE 2010 data)
National
Population
NFER
Sample
%
%
Lowest band
18
16
2nd lowest band
18
18
Middle band
18
20
2nd highest band
21
23
Highest band
25
22
1
1
Lowest 20%
20
20
2nd lowest 20%
20
20
Middle 20%
20
20
2nd highest 20%
20
20
Highest 20%
20
20
1
1
North
30
22
Midlands
32
32
South
37
45
London Borough
11
14
Metropolitan Authorities
21
20
English Unitary Authorities
18
19
Counties
51
46
19,796
1,331
Missing
% eligible FSM
(5 pt scale)
(2010/11)
Missing
Region
Local Authority type
Number of schools
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
Some information is not available for all schools and some schools included more than one respondent
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
36
Table S.4 Comparison of the achieved (weighted) sample with
the national population by grade of teacher (not including
academies)
Primary schools
Role
National
Secondary schools
NFER
1
Population
National
NFER
1
Sample
Population
Sample
N*
%
N
%
N*
%
N
%
Headteachers
14.8
8
75
9
1.7
2
4
1
Deputy
teachers
10.4
6
85
10
2.5
2
24
5
6.6
4
54
7
6.1
6
48
9
153.8
83
611
74
91.4
90
441
85
Assistant
Headteachers
Class
teachers and
others
1. National population figures are expressed in thousands and for headteachers, deputy heads and
assistant heads are based on full-time positions. NFER sample figures include all staff with these roles and
so may include part-time staff
2. The NFER sample for classroom teachers and others is based on headcount whereas the national
population data is based on FTE teachers
3. Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
4. Sources: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013, DfE: School Workforce in England, November 2012,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193090/SFR_15_2013.pdf
[3 June 2013].
Table S.5 Comparison of the achieved (weighted) academies
sample with the national population by grade of teacher
All Academies (primary and secondary)
Role
National
NFER
Population1
Sample
N1
%
N
%
Headteachers
2.4
2
7
2
Deputy Headteachers
3.4
3
17
5
Assistant Headteachers
6.3
5
29
8
103.2
90
304
85
Class teachers and others
1. National population figures are expressed in thousands and for headteachers, deputy heads and
assistant heads are based on full-time positions. NFER sample figures include all staff with these roles and
so may include part-time staff
2. Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100
3. Sources: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013, DfE: School Workforce in England, November 2012,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193090/SFR_15_2013.pdf
[3 June 2013].
37
How accurately do the results represent the national
position?
Assuming that our data is representative of the population we can calculate the precision
of results from each of our samples based on the number of respondents. We are 95 per
cent certain that any percentage we quote is within 3.4 percentage points of the
population value.
Certain questions within the survey were filtered and in these cases the number of
respondents to questions may be much smaller. In these cases we may need to be more
cautious about the precision of the percentages presented within the report. The table
below gives a rough guide to the level of precision that can be attributed to each table
based upon the total number of respondents. For example, if a table is based upon just
40 respondents we can only be sure that the percentages within that table are correct to
within plus or minus 16 percentage points.
Table S.6 Precision of estimates in percentage point terms
Number of
respondents
Precision of
estimates in
percentage point
terms
30
18
40
16
50
14
75
12
100
10
150
9
200
7
300
6
400
5
600
4
700
4
38
Annex 1: Cross-tabulations of questions by age
Table 21 How would you rate the pupil behaviour in your school?
Very good
Good
Acceptable
Poor
Very poor
Don't know
Local base (N)
Less than
25
25-29
30-39
40-49
50 or
over
20%
44%
25%
11%
0%
0%
30%
38%
18%
10%
4%
0%
29%
44%
19%
7%
1%
0%
36%
43%
15%
5%
1%
0%
40%
43%
14%
3%
1%
<1%
23
124
551
485
506
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
The numbers of respondents in some age categories were small, so the findings should be treated with caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Table 22 I feel well equipped to manage pupil behaviour
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Don't know
Local base (N)
Less than
25
25-29
30-39
40-49
50 or
over
73%
21%
6%
0%
81%
16%
4%
0%
88%
7%
4%
<1%
87%
10%
3%
0%
88%
9%
4%
0%
23
124
552
483
505
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
The numbers of respondents in some age categories were small, so the findings should be treated with caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Table 23 To what extent, if at all, do you agree that generally parents respect a teacher's authority
to discipline pupils?
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know
Local base (N)
Less than
25
25-29
30-39
40-49
50 or
over
4%
50%
8%
33%
4%
0%
3%
44%
20%
28%
5%
0%
5%
53%
14%
24%
4%
0%
2%
53%
17%
24%
4%
1%
6%
56%
18%
16%
4%
<1%
23
123
551
484
506
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
The numbers of respondents in some age categories were small, so the findings should be treated with caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
39
Table 24 Research has shown that special educational needs and disability are factors in some
pupils' challenging behaviour. Discounting these medical factors, what do you see as the main two
factors causing poor behaviour in schools?
Lack of parental support/poor
parenting skills
Negative cultural and media
influences on children
Socio-economic factors
Pupils do not come ready to learn at
age 5
Parental lack of respect for teachers
and authority
Restrictive or inappropriate
curriculum
Teachers' inadequate skills/training
in behaviour management
Lack of support from senior
managers in schools
Pupils do not come ready to learn
each morning
Class sizes are too large
Teachers have insufficient powers to
manage pupil behaviour
Lack of enforcement of the school
rules by teachers
Pupils and families with low
aspirations
Failure to intervene early if there is
an issue regarding pupil behaviour
Don't know
Other
Local base (N)
Less than
25
25-29
30-39
40-49
50 or
over
72%
71%
75%
71%
69%
17%
4%
14%
3%
10%
13%
15%
9%
19%
10%
0%
3%
4%
5%
6%
25%
26%
18%
27%
19%
6%
2%
6%
8%
11%
9%
7%
5%
4%
3%
11%
13%
11%
8%
7%
19%
4%
4%
14%
10%
8%
10%
7%
10%
7%
0%
5%
6%
4%
4%
0%
9%
5%
6%
4%
11%
16%
17%
14%
17%
11%
4%
4%
13%
0%
4%
8%
<1%
4%
9%
<1%
5%
11%
0%
4%
23
124
551
483
506
Respondents were able to select more than one response so percentages may sum to more than 100.
The numbers of respondents in some age categories were small, so the findings should be treated with caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
40
Annex 2: Cross-tabulations of questions by length of
service
Table 25 How would you rate the pupil behaviour in your school?
I am a NQT (newly
qualified teacher)
Between one and
five years
More than five years
21%
44%
27%
7%
0%
0%
25%
39%
20%
14%
3%
0%
35%
43%
16%
5%
1%
<1%
26
112
1545
Very good
Good
Acceptable
Poor
Very poor
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
The numbers of respondents in some length of service categories were small, so the findings should be treated with
caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Table 26 I feel well equipped to manage pupil behaviour
I am a NQT (newly
qualified teacher)
Between one and
five years
More than five years
63%
38%
0%
0%
83%
15%
3%
0%
88%
8%
4%
<1%
26
112
1544
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
The numbers of respondents in some length of service categories were small, so the findings should be treated with
caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Table 27 Appropriate training to manage pupil behaviour is available in my school for all classroom
teachers
I am a NQT (newly
qualified teacher)
Between one and
five years
More than five years
54%
36%
11%
0%
49%
23%
27%
1%
51%
26%
21%
2%
26
112
1542
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
The numbers of respondents in some length of service categories were small, so the findings should be treated with
caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
41
Table 28 In my view, senior leaders in my school have more opportunities than classroom teachers
to access training to manage pupil behaviour
I am a NQT (newly
qualified teacher)
Between one and
five years
More than five years
22%
45%
20%
14%
23%
38%
26%
13%
25%
29%
37%
9%
26
112
1539
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
The numbers of respondents in some length of service categories were small, so the findings should be treated with
caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Table 29 Would you use physical means to remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom?
I am a NQT (newly
qualified teacher)
Between one and
five years
More than five years
16%
7%
52%
25%
22%
16%
39%
24%
31%
20%
33%
17%
26
112
1544
Yes
No, although my school allows this
No, my school does not allow this
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
The numbers of respondents in some length of service categories were small, so the findings should be treated with
caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Table 30 Would you use physical means to break up a fight between pupils if you judged it
necessary to do so?
I am a NQT (newly
qualified teacher)
Between one and
five years
More than five years
59%
11%
7%
24%
73%
8%
7%
13%
72%
10%
5%
12%
26
112
1545
Yes
No, although my school allows this
No, my school does not allow this
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
The numbers of respondents in some length of service categories were small, so the findings should be treated with
caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
42
Table 31 To what extent, if at all, do you agree that generally parents respect a teacher's authority
to discipline pupils?
I am a NQT (newly
qualified teacher)
Between one and
five years
More than five years
0%
66%
20%
14%
0%
0%
5%
52%
15%
24%
5%
1%
4%
53%
16%
22%
4%
<1%
26
112
1545
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
The numbers of respondents in some length of service categories were small, so the findings should be treated with
caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
43
Table 32 Research has shown that special educational needs and disability are factors in some
pupils' challenging behaviour. Discounting these medical factors, what do you see as the main two
factors causing poor behaviour in schools?
I am a NQT (newly
qualified teacher)
Between one and
five years
More than five years
48%
79%
71%
7%
9%
10%
8%
15%
10%
0%
0%
5%
21%
0%
20%
3%
22%
8%
7%
3%
5%
14%
18%
8%
15%
20%
9%
12%
10%
7%
0%
3%
5%
7%
14%
7%
19%
5%
16%
23%
4%
11%
9%
0%
3%
9%
<1%
4%
26
112
1544
Lack of parental support/poor parenting
skills
Negative cultural and media influences
on children
Socio-economic factors
Pupils do not come ready to learn at
age 5
Parental lack of respect for teachers
and authority
Restrictive or inappropriate curriculum
Teachers' inadequate skills/training in
behaviour management
Lack of support from senior managers
in schools
Pupils do not come ready to learn each
morning
Class sizes are too large
Teachers have insufficient powers to
manage pupil behaviour
Lack of enforcement of the school rules
by teachers
Pupils and families with low aspirations
Failure to intervene early if there is an
issue regarding pupil behaviour
Don't know
Other
Local base (N)
Respondents were able to select more than one response so percentages may sum to more than 100.
The numbers of respondents in some length of service categories were small, so the findings should be treated with
caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
44
Annex 3: Cross-tabulations of questions by gender
Table 33 Would you use physical means to remove a disruptive pupil from the classroom?
Yes
No, although my school allows this
No, my school does not allow this
Don't know
Local base (N)
Male
Female
27%
20%
37%
16%
31%
19%
32%
18%
470
1226
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
Table 34 Would you use physical means to break up a fight between pupils if you judged it
necessary to do so?
Yes
No, although my school allows this
No, my school does not allow this
Don't know
Local base (N)
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
45
Male
Female
82%
8%
4%
7%
69%
11%
6%
15%
470
1228
Annex 4: Cross-tabulation by awareness of the
Department's updated advice
Table 35 Do you feel confident using the powers you have to discipline pupils?
Yes
No
Don't know
Local base (N)
Yes -aware of
updated advice
No – not aware of
updated advice
Don’t know if
aware of updated
advice
69%
24%
7%
55%
23%
22%
65%
8%
28%
717
895
85
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
The numbers of respondents in some categories were small, so the findings should be treated with caution.
Source: NFER Omnibus Survey May 2013.
46
© NFER [July 2013]
Reference: DFE- RR304
ISBN: 978-1-78105-260-0
The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Department for Education.
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Laura Edwards, Level 4,
Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London, SW1P 3BT / email:
laura1.edwards@education.gsi.gov.uk
This document is available for download at www.gov.uk/government/publications